Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. United States

9 F. Supp. 606, 80 Ct. Cl. 606
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedFebruary 4, 1935
DocketNo. M-395
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 F. Supp. 606 (Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. United States, 9 F. Supp. 606, 80 Ct. Cl. 606 (cc 1935).

Opinion

LITTLETON, Judge.''

The overpayment which the plaintiffs seek to recover in this case constitutes a pa t of the total of the estate tax determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and paid on the net estate of the decedent. An estate tax return was duly filed and the tax assessed thereon was paid. The Commissioner subsequently audited the return and determined, assessed, and demanded deficiencies of $115,302.77 and $2,700.22, which were paid on August 19, 1925, and constituted the final payment on account of the total tax determined and demanded from the estate. Thereafter, within three years after the total tax had been determined and paid, the estate filed claims for refund which were allowed in part and rejected in part and later reopened and reconsidered. Thereafter the Commissioner determined that there had been a further overpayment of $191,225.46 in respect of the tax of the estate but refused to refund the amount of $134,212.25 thereof with interest, on the ground that this portion of the total estate tax collected had been paid more than four years prior.to the filing of the claim for refund.

The only issue presented in this case is one of law and is exactly the same as the question considered and decided by this court November 5, 1934, in Jessie Norwell Hills, Executrix, v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 849, and in Haebler v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 855. For the reasons Stated in these opinions we hold that the overpayment in question is not barred by the statute of limitation and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Judgment will be entered accordingly. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tait v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore
78 F.2d 534 (Fourth Circuit, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F. Supp. 606, 80 Ct. Cl. 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safe-deposit-trust-co-v-united-states-cc-1935.